‘BioShock Infinite – Burial at Sea: Episode 1′ Spoilers Discussion

Few games this year have inspired as heated and varied of a debate as BioShock Infinite. One might argue that the need to confound is in developer Irrational Games‘ DNA, but it’s also what makes these games’ stories so intriguing. With that mind, it should come as no surprise to learn that Infinite‘s first story-based DLC, Burial at Sea: Episode 1, features a conclusion that’s equally as complex and well worth discussing.

While Burial at Sea takes players to the underwater of utopia of Rapture, and features a completely different incarnation of Elizabeth and Booker (more on that in a bit), its story still seems to factor into the larger Infinite universe. And that’s not just in terms of this version’s “constants” and “variables” either. Follow us as we delve deeper into Burial at Sea: Part 1‘s ending, and beware there are spoilers from here on out.

Burial at Sea‘s story begins rather innocuously, with Booker (our hard-boiled detective) taking a job from Elizabeth (our Femme Fatale) to find a missing girl named Sally. Many girls have gone missing from Rapture, but this one in particular seems to be connected to Booker in some way.

As Booker and Elizabeth set off in search of Sally, they explore several locales around Rapture, but they spend most of their time in the Fontaine Department building. There they discover Sally’s whereabouts, and there they also discover how this version of Booker and Elizabeth, as with all other previous incarnations, are connected.

As it turns out, the quest to save Sally was mostly a red herring, meant to trigger Booker’s memory. There is still some purpose to Sally’s existence — we eventually learn that she is Booker’s adopted daughter, and one of the first Little Sisters — but the truly shocking and discussion worthy moment in Burial Sea has little to do with that revelation, and has everything to do with Booker.

In this version of the Comstock/Booker story, Comstock tries to kidnap Anna from an alternate reality, but ends up decapitating the baby rather than merely slicing off the tip of her finger. And so, instead of building Columbia and taking up the mantle of “The Prophet,” this version of Comstock seeks refuge in Rapture as Booker the detective. However, Elizabeth won’t let this version, or any version, of Comstock exist, and so she sets in motion this plan that will force Comstock/Booker to confront his past before ultimately meeting his end at the drill of a Big Daddy.

Obviously, there was a lot to cover in such a short amount of time, but most details seem fairly clear. This version of Comstock was not killed by Booker’s sacrificial act at the end of BioShock Infinite proper, but was no less evil. Why exactly he was not killed isn’t nearly as clear, but some might argue that because this Comstock doesn’t become The Prophet, Booker’s drowning didn’t affect him.

If that is the case, then it might be safe to assume that the Booker who wakes up at the post-credits scene in Infinite might be the same Booker in Burial at Sea. Many thought that scene might be Irrational Games messing with fans, but it makes sense in this context. That being said, there are still a few questions raised by the ending that are not implicitly explained, and most of them have to do with this incarnation of Elizabeth.

The good thing about Burial at Sea, though, is we get an Episode 2, which will likely further explain the purpose of this Elizabeth. As we already know, Episode 2 will let gamers play as Elizabeth for the first time, which is exciting in and of itself, but it will also presumably provide fans with even more insight into the overarching narrative in Infinite. In fact, if the teaser image for Episode 2 is any indication, we might also learn more about the nature of the Little Sisters in this next DLC.

107 Comments

The biggest that I can’t wrap my head around is how Comstock can even exist in the Rapture universe that we play in during BaS.

If I understand correctly, the effect of the Elizabeths drowning Booker at the very end of Infinite would be: NO Comstock, no Columbia. Anna and Booker WOULD exist, I think the after-credits scene strongly suggests that. Comstock and the whole Comstock/Columbia/Elizabeth universe cease to exist after the drowning, since the variable of “baptism=Comstock=Columbia” or “no baptism=Booker=no Columbia” was removed from the equation, which is (again, IIRC) what Elizabeth and the Luteces were trying to do.

One more thing that a lot of people tend to overlook: WHY they wanted Comstock destroyed. The REAL problem with this Comstock/Columbia/Elizabeth universe existing in the first place was the inevitable Elizabeth turning “evil dictator”, bombing New York, as “forseen by the Prophet”. THAT is what the destruction of Comstock was for. Returning Elizabeth to Booker was done to prevent her from following Comstock’s doctrine, making her a threat to the world. Robert Lutece, specifically, wanted to prevent that. But since he and Rosalind tried that MANY times, it didn’t work. However, Elizabeth’s revelation simply put forth a different way of solving that problem – making Comstock not exist at all.

But suddenly, in Rapture, there IS a Comstock, there IS a Columbia in which tear technology is used so Comstock can take Anna so he can have an heir. Comstock, however, messes up the trade with Booker and effectively kills Anna and gets sent to Rapture to forget about it, he returns to being Booker DeWitt.

I have no problem with ELIZABETH being there since I believe that once the Siphon was destroyed, she became omniscient, like the Lutece Twins; basically she can be anywhere, see anything etc.

In short: I just don’t see how Comstock is back in the picture at all after he was clearly “erased” by the actions of Elizabeth in Infinite.

I do hope EP2 explains SOMETHING. I liked the ending of Infinite and I think Bas:EP1 complicated everything a bit too much. If Bas:EP2 doesn’t wrap this up, there are gonna be too many questions and not enough answers. I like an ambiguous plot and vague endings that are open to interpretation, but this borders on “anything goes”.

I think the answer is very simple … this dlc happened before Elizabeth erased all the Comstocks. Basically, the Siphon is destroyed and Elizabeth becomes a being untied to the natural order like the Luteces, but before she drowns Booker at the babtism she goes to Rapture (perhaps even when she journeys to Rapture with Booker during the Sea of Doors – while that Elizabeth was traveling with him another Elizabeth was setting Comstock up). Once this Comstock is dead, she then kills all of them in one swoop. So it would be kill the original Comstock first, the BaS Comstock, then all Comstocks.

As for why this one gets the special treatment … revenge? For all we know he is the sole Comstock to actually kill Elizabeth – chop off her head before she even got the chance to live. That or maybe she was taken care in case the fact that he is a Comstock in Rapture save a Comstock in a variable of Columbia manages to save him somehow … which it very well might have if the BaS happened after the drowning.

I have spent some time contemplating this and while “before the baptism” makes sense in a way, I’m not very fond of this “before/after” classification/theory. These universes don’t seem to care for time or timelines – yes, some events are in chronological order but that doesn’t mean they adhere to time/space in a way that one event is before/after another – they coincide, which you did mention: “perhaps even when she journeys to Rapture with Booker during the Sea of Doors — while that Elizabeth was traveling with him another Elizabeth was setting Comstock up”. Elizabeth backs this up by saying “Booker, you’ve already been” in one part of the Infinite finale, and Rosalind says “Don’t see the point. What’s done is done… What’s done, WILL be done” and other things like the futility of tenses:

Robert – “The only difference between past and present…”
Rosalind – “is semantics.”
Robert – “Lives, lived, will live.”
Rosalind – “Dies, died, will die.”
Robert – “If we could perceive time as it really was…”
Rosalind – “what reason would grammar professors have to get out of bed?”
Robert – “Like us all, lady Comstock, exists across time.”
Rosalind – “She is both alive and dead.”
Robert – “She perceives being both.”

Thinking about this some more, I think I’ve come up with what Irrational decided to keep for themselves to keep us guessing. Remember what Elizabeth keeps repeating, “constants and variables”? I think the only reason there can be a Booker/Comstock in Rapture at all is that the baptism itself wasn’t really the ONLY variable that would determine whether or not Booker was to turn into Comstock or not. I have NO idea what that variable might be, however. IMO there has to be a Comstock for there to be a Columbia for there to be a sterile Comstock in need of taking Anna from Booker. Developing this further, the actual act of taking Anna may be a variable, but not in the Comstock/Booker split situation, but in the “Comstock has Anna, stays in Columbia”/”Comstock kills Anna with portal and goes to Rapture because of guilt.”

I think Elizabeth went to Rapture and wanted the whole Sally/flashback deal to happen so that she could see if this particular Booker is really a “Comstock-free” Booker, or if there is indeed another “branch” of Comstocks, stemming from the unknown variable I mentioned. BaS:EP2 might be Elizabeth in search of what event that variable is and erasing, just like Infinite was Booker and Elizabeth finding the variable that made Comstock in the first place and erasing it.

One more point… I think the assumption that Booker was drowned before he made the choice of baptism or no baptism is incorrect, even though the BioShock Wikia even states this was so. While the Elizabeths are explaining to Booker that in some cases he takes the baptism and in some he doesn’t, you can clearly hear Preacher Witting telling the religious lines that he was telling to Booker the first time he re-visited the baptism (I could catch “Do you hate your wickedness?” and “…blood of the Lamb?” during this scene); after which, the preacher clearly asks “And what name shall you take, my son?”, meaning Booker HAD to say “Yes” to (all) the question(s) beforehand (whereas he had quite a more dramatic exit in the instance of rejecting the baptism), meaning that they are in an instance where Booker has already accepted the baptism. One of the Elizabeths replies “He’s Zachary Comstock”, another “No, he’s Booker DeWitt” and Booker says “No… I’m both”. I think this clearly shows that the Elizabeths drowned the Booker who has already accepted his new Comstock identity, but has obviously not made any subsequent choices – still, the main choice (accept the baptism) was already made. Killing Booker before he made the choice wouldn’t make sense as that would just kill him the same way as anything else (even when you die in Columbia etc.) and would have nothing to do with erasing Comstock.

Man I am so pissed that I have so many friends that play games and none of them cared enough for this game to discuss this very discussion-inciting ending and plot. Glad I have intelligent interlocutors to bounce ideas around with.

There is the quote from one of the voxaphones mentioning that Einstein said something along the lines of “the purpose of time is to stop everything from happening at once,” which ties in to the whole idea of this happening at the same time quite nicely.

There is always an idea that there is a universe in which elizabeth decided not to kill booker, or booker decided not to let it happen.

Yeah, I heard about that idea, and a fact that supports it is that JUST before Elizabeth and Booker went into the last “baptism” scene, another universe was made. Elizabeth asks Booker “Are you sure you want to do this?” before they go into the final lighthouse – bam, that could’ve created another split.

However, there is one thing that bugs me with this theory: Booker and Elizabeth were in the “no-world” or “in-between world” when this choice was made, and all the choices spawning different universes were made in the “real world”. So I doubt that “choice” would have actual repercussions in the timeline.

On a side note, I’d just like to deal with a pet peeves of mine when reading people’s theories… I think they get one part of the way universes split “wrong”. Folks talk about Infinite universes and then they give the example “oh but there’s a possibility that there’s a universe where Booker gets hit by a bus so none of this never happens anyway, a universe where Booker couldn’t fight in Wounded Knee because he couldn’t get into the Army” etc. This is not how it works. Yes, there are “Infinite” universes but there are CONSTANTS and VARIABLES that determine these universes. If we take “Booker gets hit by a bus”; that would not happen in ANY of the universes because Booker crossing the road safely (or whatever) is a constant.

That said, it is kind of ironic that a BioShock game has such a story – remember, it is the game that was originally advertised with “no two players will play the game in the same way”. Yeah it wasn’t the most original line and a million games have used it but in BioShock it’s a bit funny since we all played the game differently only to find out that our protagonist had done the same damn thing 122 (or 121? I don’t really remember the number) times before lol

Craigsfist 1 year ago

Was it ever stated in the game(s) which came first, Columbia (not the technology to make it float mind you) or the tear technology. I get the impression that is was the tears because the audiovox recording from Rosalyn states she started communicating with Robert as she was discovering the Lutece particles. She doesn’t say if she figured out how to use the particles to make a city float, but the filmstrip shows both of the working together to make Columbia’s technology more than just a concept. My theory is in one variable they open a tear and take Anna so Comstock has his heir to the city he intended to created (i.e. Columbia) and in another she died so he had no heir and scrapped the idea of Columbia having nobody to take his place after he died. Elizabeth was a huge part, if not the main reason, Comstock wanted Columbia to exist. Without her there it threw a huge pipe-wrench in his plans…….you see what I did there?

Holy crap, that makes so much sense, I just created an account for the sole purpose of commenting on this post. For some reason, that possibility never even crossed my mind, but now that you said it, the whole thing makes a lot more sense to me now. Great job!

My wishlist for episode 2:
more Big Daddies
an explanation of how the Luteces were killed
why the decoy looks like Booker from Infinite (which raises the question of what and who the deooys from Infinite and B@S are. Possibly an alternate Booker and innocent random people pulled through a tear to serve as a distraction only to end up dead or sent back to their universe beaten up?)
Andrew Ryan
Atlas/Fontain
“would you kindly….”
more weapons and plasmids
closure

That is known (it’s documented on Robert Lutece’s Bioshock Wikia article and backed up by Rosalind’s Voxophone) – they were both inside the Tear Machine when Jeremiah Fink sabotaged it. It didn’t really kill them, it just made them stay in the “nothing-verse” between worlds, making them timeless and able to appear anywhere at anytime.

I also don’t know what to make of the Decoy point you made… I don’t think it’s that relevant since it’s just a “tear goodie” that Elizabeth can summon but it is an interesting POV to consider.

I wholly agree with the rest of your list though. I would LOVE if the whole Jack/Ryan/Atlas(Fontaine) storyline and maybe even the Bioshock 2 Subject Delta/Lamb/Tennenbaum/Eleanor universe were somehow intertwined with EP2.

The combat in Infinite and BaS is also a bit dull if you ask me. Yes, I’ve tried it on hard. It may be just me, but the enemies in Infinite were AWFULLY monotonous, if compared to the Splicers in Bioshock. Leadhead splicer, Houdini splicer, Spider splicer, Normal splicer… Here it’s just shoot this guy, shoot that guy. Wait for epic violin “end of combat” sound… phew, they’re dead.

Awe son of a B I don’t remember that voxophone entry about the Luteces. I must have not picked it up so now I have to go back and find it, LOL. Thanks for the correction Eyigat.

As far as the decoys go, I tend to agree with you that there are simply there for entertainment purposes and to help distract your enemies (I love sending in a decoy to flush out all of the splices/vox/troops in an area/arena so I can see just what I am up against)but the idea is a little dark if they are indeed real people.

“So I was just walking around Battleship Bay and suddenly I was enveloped in a blinding blue light. Then I was surrounded by firemen, patriots, handymen, troops and some guy in a black vest with a bandage around his right hand and a girl with a thimble on her finger. Everybody was shooting at me except the guy and girl who seemed to be just allowing me to get hit while the shot at the others. Just when I thought I was done for, there was another blue light and they all disappeared. Screw this Columbia place, I’d be better off as the bottom of the ocean.”

I would love to see parts from the entire franchise woven into episode 2, however, I think there is still plenty of story to be told after episode 2. Maybe a DLC in Columbia from the perspective of a Handyman, solider or Vox. Maybe even a DLC of Rapture as a Splicer taking you through the transition of being a normal person to a raging splicer.

I think it would be amazing if you were in Rapture watching the opening scene of Bioshock 2 when subject Alpha blew his brains out or you run into a guy named topside Johnny.

Okay so I am going to try to post this one last time. My theory on Comstock/Booker, which is really a timeline, is quite simple. In 1890 Booker fought at The Battle of Wounded Knee (let’s say around age 16-18), in 1893 age 18-20 he gave up his daughter to a man who appeared to be in his later 30s, about 18 years went by and in 1912 at age 36-39 Booker went to Columbia and saved his daughter from a man in his mid 50s. The age factor fits in with the timeline I am about to propose.

Booker fought at Wounded Knee and felt guilty about his actions during the battle. So much so that some time between 1890 and 1893 he went to a river to be cleansed of his sins in a baptism. This is where most people believe the split occurred causing a world with Comstock and a world with Booker. I disagree. When Booker attempted to take his daughter back from Comstock, Comstock appeared to be a man in his late 30s (basically resembling what Booker’s reflections look like when you start playing the game with the addition of a beard.) I know space and time are all relative in this game’s universe but I think there is an explanation.

My timeline goes like this; Booker fought in Wounded Knee in 1890, sometime between 1890-1893 he went to be baptized and didn’t go trough with it and had a child, Booker gave his child to Comstock in 1893, he shut himself away in his office until 1912 when he went to Columbia to save his child, he rescued Elizabeth and freed her from the Siphon (as well as a ton of other stuff in the process) and Elizabeth took Booker back to somewhere between 1890-1893 to be re-baptized and went through with it the second time at the same river at a different point in time and this is where I believe the split occurred.

I think this is where Booker became Comstock and went on to kidnap his own daughter as the prophet of Columbia. There is evidence to support this theory. Comstock was about the same age in 1893 and Booker was in 1912 which would suggest that he basically went back to 1890 to relive his life as Comstock. This is also supported by Booker and Comstock never being close to the same age at any given point in the game (and yes I know the tears and exposure to the Lutece’s machines sped up his aging via tumors). When Booker went back to the river Elizabeth even said, “this is not the same place” meaning that it was a different time than when he first went. Plus the group of people who were present at Booker’s failed baptism were not there the second time around and the preacher’s wording was different. And let us not forget that Comstock knew every one of Booker’s moves before he made them (so much so that he had a mural on the First Lady Airship depicting everything that happened in the game.) He claimed the Angel Columbia showed him all of this, but I think he was referring to Elizabeth. Comstock even knew about the “AD” branding on Booker’s hand. Why? Because he had done everything as Booker and knew what would happen right down to his death just after uttering the words “it is done”. This makes the song “Let the Circle be Unbroken” very appropriate. I think when you see the post-credit scene of Booker opening the door to check on Anna, that is just before he gave her to Robert Lutece keeping the circle unbroken.

So this brings me to Burial at Sea. The Constant is that Booker becomes Comstock during the baptism (the second one) but the variable here is what happened while trying to take Anna/Elizabeth. In one variable he succeeds in taking her (minus a finger) and in another variable he fails in taking her resulting in her death. So as a result of her death he did not have an heir to pass on ruling Columbia to and instead hid away in Rapture to try an live another life with nothing to remind him of his past. This is why Comtock’s reflection in the water dish in B@S still looked a bit like Booker. I want to go more in depth but I think there is content limit. Let me know what you all think.

It’s an interesting theory and would explain the presence of a second variable, but here’s where I find a hole:

“My timeline goes like this; Booker fought in Wounded Knee in 1890, sometime between 1890-1893 he went to be baptized and didn’t go trough with it and had a child, Booker gave his child to *Comstock* in 1893, he shut himself away in his office until 1912 when he went to Columbia to save his child”

The split had to occur there; if the first baptism wasn’t a variable, there wouldn’t be a Comstock to begin with, there would be just Booker. He has a child, Anna, he gambles, all of that happens but there would be no need for a Robert Lutece to ask Booker to hand the child over since there would be no one to hand the child over to in the first place.
Having a split occur later would suggest that there’s a linear timeline up to a point where Infinite ends. But the Infinite universe (the one you, the player, inhabit) is a mash up of two worlds brought together through the tears the Luteces discovered – if Robert/Rosalind had never contacted Booker by order of Comstock, the two would have never met or even known about each other.

“And let us not forget that Comstock knew every one of Booker’s moves before he made them (so much so that he had a mural on the First Lady Airship depicting everything that happened in the game.) He claimed the Angel Columbia showed him all of this, but I think he was referring to Elizabeth. Comstock even knew about the “AD” branding on Booker’s hand. Why? Because he had done everything as Booker and knew what would happen right down to his death just after uttering the words “it is done”.”

Comstock had the ability to use and see through tears. That is how he “predicted” Elizabeth following his doctrine and raining hell on the “Sodom below”. He wouldn’t have to live what Booker did, he would be able to see what Booker does (well, had done 122 times before).
The circle was broken the 123rd time because Booker was able to destroy the Siphon, giving Elizabeth full power to actually be able to take him to the baptism in the first place.

“When Booker went back to the river Elizabeth even said, “this is not the same place” meaning that it was a different time than when he first went. Plus the group of people who were present at Booker’s failed baptism were not there the second time around and the preacher’s wording was different.”

True, it is not the same place; the first time he is there (with Elizabeth), he re-lived the instance of rejecting the baptism. In that particular case at the very end, he re-visited an instance of accepting the baptistm; but having Elizabeth(s) with him to be able to die (as Comstock), he is killed and the Comstock “branch” collapses on itself.

My thought is their ages not matching up and seeing Comstock in 1893 at about the same ages as Booker in 1912 fits my theory. Plus Comstock was rendered sterile from the Luteces machines which I equate to the numerous tears he went through as Booker.

The thing that I can’t quite wrap my brain around is that there are an infinite number of Columbias, so why does every Comstock know exactly what Booker is doing the whole time? You would think that one of them would being a little in the dark but their knowledge all seems to be the exact same. Rosalyn Lutece even remarks “why are all other Comstocks healthy while this one suffers from tumors?” or words to that effect. I feel it is because the tumor-ridden Comstock is Booker after going through all the tears in Columbia.

This leads me to another question, if there are an infinite amount of Columbias wouldn’t there be an infinite amount of Raptures? Theoretically speaking, the Rapture you are playing in from B@S might not even be the same Rapture from Bioshock. The fact that plasmids are consumed in beverage from instead of injected supports that. I know they had a PSA playing in the background that basically says using plasmids doesn’t have to hurt from painful injections any more and Suchen even talks about stealing the idea of drinkable plasmids from Fink via tears, but this takes place in 1958 and in 1960 people are still injecting plasmids.

The bottom line is we won’t know for sure until episode 2 comes out and they still might not answer all of the question raised.

I definitely agree the Rapture from B@S is not the same one as our known and loved Bioshock 1 Rapture, precisely because of what you stated: Plasmids are named all “wrong”, Winter Blast=Old Man Winter, Incinerate=Devil’s Kiss; I don’t think EVE is called EVE either, and other “inconsistencies”, no doubt intentional.

All in all I was very underwhelmed by the gameplay of both Infinite and Burial at Sea but I’ll be damned if the story doesn’t outweigh that, so I can’t wait for EP2. It’s like the opposite of D00M or Quake, there I didn’t care for the story much because there basically was none yet the gameplay was pure adrenaline; here the gameplay is meh but the story is just great, it challenges your head and inspires debate. I just hope they will truly bring this to a satisfying close; I hate it when a great story ends with more questions than answers.

Meanwhile I swiped System Shock 2 from Steam for 2.50â‚¬ during a sale so I get my share of Levine’s work anyway

Correction: EVE is still EVE but it’s in drinkable liquid form not IV hypos.

Craigsfist 1 year ago

This got me wondering about all of the flashback sequences Elizabeth was present for. Wouldn’t her presence have altered the outcomes due to her not being there the first time around? If she is not truly there then what are the flashbacks? You seemed to be locked into going through with them no matter what “wait as long as you want, in the end you are going to give him what he wants.”

I also think Booker inherently has it in him to become Comstock no matter what so if it was at the first baptism or following theory of the second time around he was going to be Comstock. There may very well be an alternate universe where Booker was spanked too hard as a baby or found out there was no Santa Claus which was traumatic enough for his personality to split and become Comstock sooner. This is a little bit of a stretch but you get the point, possibly watching his wife during labor made him become Comstock.

So I am just as befuddled as the rest of the posters as to how the Comstock Dewitt ended up in Rapture with serious amnesia. I wanted to post about something else, which seems to be a running theme in all the Bioshock games, that of a forced atonement for past misdeeds. Booker Dewitt, whether it is as himself or Comstock, goes to evil extremes to accomplish a goal, only to have someone go through any means necessary to punish them, or at least recognize the error of their ways, as this B@S first episode has shown us. It never seems to be the will of Booker, Comstock, or Ryan for that matter, to change or even show a tiny bit of remorse. From such are the best villains composed. But Infinite has taken a twist on the old theme, having the villain and hero be one and the same (Jekyll & Hyde), but instead of a potion and time of day separating the two, it is a choice made in the past. This is what makes Dewitt such a reprehensible character. If left to his own choices, in how many universes would Booker Dewitt end up as an evil man? My guess is more than 50%. The Comstock that killed Elizabeth as a baby (even unintentionally) would go to such great lengths to avoid responsibility for his actions as to have the Luteces wipe his memory and put him in another city. He’s all about avoiding consequences for his actions, so much so that it just feels great to see him get his comeuppance at the end of the episode, much more satisfying in my opinion than just being killed, because he begins to understand the effect he’s had on others. Much could be said of all the Bioshock villains, men who do not want to deal with the consequences the rest of the world imposes on them, so much so that they create their own ‘worlds’ where they have free reign. But then when everything goes terribly awry, they are not to be blamed or held responsible, that is, until the game’s protagonist serves them a cold dish of uppance.

I honestly feel that Booker is a very remorseful person. He agrees to let the multiple Elizabeths drown at the end of Infinite to make amends and shows serious regret as Comstock at the end of episode 1, even apologizing. I think if he was truly evil he would have said something like “and I would have done it all again if I could” to which point Elizabeth would say “I know, but you’re not going to get that chance” right before he was killed.

It is the epitome of the angel and devil on your shoulders while playing. On the good side you have Booker and on the bad side you have Comstock, the only problem is that the player doesn’t realize they listened to Comstock without being able to stop it (would you kindly much?) This has a more profound meaning which is a question of are we really a blank slate capable of choosing good and/or evil actions or are we destined to be one or the other no matter what?

Honestly, I’m holding my breath that somehow “Our” Booker will somehow be brought back to life (maybe he didn’t die in his entirety), and father and daughter can finally, and truly be reunited. Probably won’t happen. Fingers crossed.

I honestly think they could bring him back with a vita-chamber. However since the second episode is going to focus mainly on Elizabeth I doubt we are going to be playing as Booker. I think it would be great for Booker to show back up to aid Elizabeth, then at a crucial point in the plot, have either Ryan or Atlas say over the short-wave radio, “Booker, would you kindly dispose of your female companion” and have him attack her as a final boss.

*Spoilers*
Not that I am bragging or anything, but it looks like this prediction came true “I think it would be great for Booker to show back up to aid Elizabeth”. The first 2 minutes clearly show this happening. I cannot wait for March 25th.

I wondered something the other day, is Comstock truly the greatest evil in the game? He didn’t really kidnap Anna, Booker gave her to Comstock of his own free will. He locked her up in a tower, but Booker tried once to take her back so it stands to reason he would do so again. He didn’t really administer any of the torture because it was the doctors who did all of it following orders we never really heard given. He was racist but so was everybody in Columbia who were clearly Caucasian. He had his wife and the Luteces killed but it was to protect Elizabeth’s “destiny”. His intention weren’t totally evil, but his actions were.

In B@S he was only partially responsible for Anna’s death. Sure she would have still lived if he let her go back with Booker, but if Booker let go after giving her up she would also have lived. In B@S all Comstock did was basically buy Anna from Booker and then fought to keep her resulting in the tear closing over her head. Then he took off to Rapture to forget about it. What did he do in Rapture that was evil?

All of the stuff he supposedly did in Columbia after Songbird took Elizabeth back was only in a possible future in which we never knew just how long he lived. I am not saying the guy was a saint, but he wasn’t the devil incarnate either. Just a thought.

This is going to sound way whack but just stick with me.
The Bioshock storyline seems as if they could all exist in coherence, meaning that they could all happen at the same time without affecting each other. That was until Elizabeth kept repeating “Constants…and Variables.” which kind of threw me off balance. I feel if Booker were to become Comstock at the “Second Baptism” after the events of Infinite that he would try to SAVE Elizabeth from the ORIGINAL Comstock we fought in Infinite. This would imply that the time frame for Infinite is a continuous cycle. In other words, in B@S, in the flashbacks, Comstock isn’t taking the Child from Booker, he is taking the Child from the “First” Comstock. After that failed, he went away with his regrets and let the Luteces sentence him to Rapture, where the “First” Elizabeth travels via tear to extract her revenge on the “Second” Comstock. All of this depends on not Booker giving the Child to 1 Comstock being the variable, but 2 Comstock try to adopt Elizabeth from the 1 being the variable. Let me know what you guys think about that.

I would also like to note that, while having played Bioshock 1 and Infinite, that it seems to be a plausible idea that Booker IS Jack. This is the part that is WAY out there. It would mean that Booker=Comstock=Jack. However, it doesn’t seem believable due the age difference and the fact that they have different tattoos.

I had another interesting though, albeit while ridiculously sick on the verge of hallucinating, what happened to the Booker from B@S? I am not talking about the false Booker/Comstock you plays for all of episode 1. I mean the one your character is struggling with when Anna was decapitated. There has to be some fate for him. I can’t imagine he would have reacted the same way as he did in Infinite, pulling back a lifeless decapitated baby would be a bit more traumatic than watching a severed pinky finger fall out of a whole in the wall. How would this Booker play into the storyline if at all? Maybe Elizabeth becomes the villain in Episode 2 and the true Booker is brought to Rapture by the Luteces to put a stop to her. He was willing to go to Columbia to get her back in Infinite, if given the chance, he may as well go to Rapture to get vengeance…… after all he was a Pinkerton with a violent past. Just a thought.

Okay you have all had enough time to watch the trailer but what I am about to say won’t really ruin it. I think my answer about what happened to the Booker who brought back the headless baby has been somewhat answered. Seriously go and watch it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmM0BBc5i0k and draw your own conclusions.

So I think I just discovered something huge about BioShock Infinite Burial at Sea and its plot, and I wanna get other people’s views on it…
So anyway, the girl you’re trying to save is named Sally, little else is ever said about her character besides her name. Here is the thing though, there is a very obscure character in the story line of the original Infinite plot line also named Sally, also a little girl, a little girl you never see, you only hear about her from a voxophone.
“Sally! The bastard snuck in while the Vox was shootin’ up the place and took my girl! Got her locked up in the Salty Oyster–his hidden closet he keeps all his treasures. Just need to hit the button under the register to open it, but…” –Ronald Frank, July the 6th, 1912
And she was locked up in the SALTY OYSTER, come on thats way to big a coincidence that it has that name, thats gatta be a clue that it has to do with Rapture, it is a city under the sea after all. It’s gatta be the same girl…

Ok we’ll talk about variables and constants and good and evil, relatively. Assuming the choice of baptism is a constant with all Bookers/Comstocks and the acceptance or rejection is a variable we can say this created a split of good and evil. Killing Comstock at the end of BSI means the Comstock in B@S should not exist, unless there is another variable that creates Comstock after the baptism. So why doesn’t Elisabeth just kill him at this split as well instead hunting down each individual Comstock. The only answer is that this new variable also created more versions of Booker that she did not want to kill.
Aside form this theory my only explanation is that the B@S story line is flawed. There is no getting around it Comstock should be dead, if he isn’t he was created some other way after the baptism. If Elizabeth didn’t kill him after the baptism this other choice created more Bookers. It’s also possible that the last scene was also a variable other wise she would have just killed Comstock at the start of B@S.

I think its rather incorrect to assume that the Booker at the end of Infinite is the Comstock Rapture Booker. First the date on the calendar is different (by 60 years or so), second he’s looking for Anna not Sally in the room, and third the gun on the office desk is distinctly different: A broadsider pistol versus the paddywhacker handcannon. Such differences would suggest that Booker at the end of Infinite is different from Comstock Booker in Rapture.

When we see all of the Elizabeth versions drown booker, though we only see a handful, they represent a myriad of universes. The Elizabeth you are with does not participate in the drowning, (Booker turns to her and says “wait.. you’re not…” and she is not wearing the brooch), her Comstock is dead.

The Elizabeth you are with throughout Infinite survived and has come to the Burial At Sea universe to weed out a Comstock that survived via a loophole – his universe had no Elizabeth to attend the drowning.

Now for the part that isn’t really a spoiler or even has anything to do with episode 2. What if there was a version of Booker that got his pinky cut off in the tear during the struggle instead of Anna/Elizabeth? Wouldn’t he have the ability to open and close tears as well? That might lead to an interesting Universe, possibly one in which he becomes Comstock based on his ability to see through tears the way Elizabeth can by the end of Infinite. Just a little food for thought, now go watch the trailer.

That trailer left me with all kinds of questions!! Also, your second part makes a surprisingly large amount of sense, the only thing I can think of, is how does this new Booker know what she needs to say – unless of course, he already knows what’s going to happen.

I am actually thinking this new Booker is either the Booker seen in the decapitation flashback and the tear somehow closed over him in a way we didn’t see giving him the same powers as Elizabeth, or it is the Booker who drown at the end of infinite and somehow came back like lady Comstock (both alive and dead at the same time but just able to hold his composure better.)